Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>I would suggest that we leave out: ****or the
"approval in principle" ****
>
>Now it reads:
>
>The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
for the
>immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the
ICANN Board
>in accordance with its Bylaws. The General Assembly of the
DNSO recommends
>to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an
Individuals'
>Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the
Stockholm plenary
>session.
>
>/Bruce
>
Dear Bruce,
I would like the original additional option ("approval in
principle") to be part of the wording of my motion.
This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board.
"Creation" by the Board, is likely to be referred back to the
NC for "advice".
I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we
are talking about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual
"users".
Jefsey wants this clarification.
Clarified motion for the ballot:
The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
constituency of Individual Domain Name holders) by the ICANN Board
in accordance with its Bylaws. The General Assembly of the DNSO
recommends to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such
an Individuals' Constituency or the "approval in principle" on
its agenda for a decision at
the Stockholm plenary session.
Agree/Disagree
--Joop-- Founder of the Cyberspace Association. Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org) Developer of The Polling Booth www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
|